MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133017565

Variation in emergency department triage of acute myocardial infarction patients, the effect on outcomes, and predictors of low triage

2006· dissertation· W7133017565 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clare L. Atzema

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageEmergency departmentMyocardial infarctionMortality rateChartAcute coronary syndrome
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conclusion. Half of AMI patients are given a low ED triage score, which is associated with substantial delay to thrombolysis. Background. Emergency department (ED) triage of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not been examined. Results. The rate of low triage was 50.3%. Low triage was associated with significantly longer median door-to-ECG and door-to-needle times (by 4 and 15 minutes, respectively). Mortality was not associated with triage. Several variables were independent predictors of low triage. Methods. The EFFECT database contains population-based chart review data on AMI patients in Ontario from 1999 to 2001. We utilized EFFECT data to determine the rate of low triage, defined as a score of III, IV, or V on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, among 3088 patients. Multivariable modeling was used to determine the association between low triage and door-to-ECG time, door-to-needle time, and 30-day mortality, and to assess predictors of low triage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→